tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 3, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
are not convinced that you need government subsidies for residence si training. that's an issue we could debate and the lessons about the will of prevention in the health care system and how we could put the spotlight on prevention in saving money and fostering collaborations between community-based organizations. and how we can expand their role. the role of prevention. i think this is a question i get a lot when i speak on health care. my view is that prevention is incredibly overrated as a cost-saving tool. think about it this way.
if we gave mammograms to every 22-year-old woman in america, we wouldn't save any money. we would spend a lot money on mammograms and 0.2% of 22-year-old american women have breast cancer. we would have a lot of false positives as well. just because you deploy a test doesn't mean you save money. we all have to die of something. yes, you can extend life. just because we live longer doesn't mean health care suddenly becomes cheaper. if you look at the countries with the longest life tha expectancy, they spend the most on health care. it is heavily arguable as to whether prevention saves money. a lot on theexpect fiscal side. we should do it because it's better medicine. >> i would endorse that. many years ago, kaiser did a
study of screening. that didn't pay off. the argument for prevention, very good premiums. every good insurer knows that. if you had targeted breast cancer for people and their history -- it could save money. overall, i totally agree. everything i've read suggests that to accept people who seem to have a vested interest in that. -- moreve you a more like peers, but i don't think it would save dollars. , but i don't think it would save dollars. in our company, we pay about will billion dollars a year in
total claims -- $12 billion a year in total claims. that is a become revered approximately $2.5 billion of that is directly related to lifestyle choices that people make that are bad. orstance abuse, tobacco obesity related, including diabetes. if we can cut that number in half through whatever, teaching or through health some sort of initiative, that is real money that would not get passed on to reflect premiums. let's think about that from that perspective notwithstanding the fact that we are all health care, we are going to feel better and be more productive. we will live longer and more
productive lives. inherently, there is value in a proposition. the affordable care act is important to bring out, the demand that's been put on the health provider community to focus on population health management. arms thatew call to has never really been tapped into historically because it's never been called out as a necessity with respect to why you get paid for what you do. with respect to that point, you get what you pay for. and i talked earlier about value-based payment, the relationship we have now with the provider community by way of these collaborative linkages, we an allng and all in -- in engagement where we are not just paying for care or episodic care, we are also paying for the health status being maintained
at as good a level as possible for all of our members. of ourt $30 billion payment to provider is rooted in value-based payment, i can assure you that we talked providers about prevention. if you don't come to begin with, you will cost providers and the employer community a lot less over the long haul. i think you are seeing conversions of opportunities being developed. it is embryonic. as an industry, we have not been all that historically adept at managing prevention. i think we've come upon a new day. the possibilities are there. but we have to get very aggressive about it in terms of managing exactly what has been called out as expectation. >> thank you. we have another question from the audience on medical innovation. and what role they are going to play in the future. there are some controversial
things going on right now with drugs. i will throw it out to the panelists. what do see about the future of medical innovation? on a thing you are talking about specifically, but in general, can you address medical innovation? >> i will begin. i have to hear an economist perspective on this. it's a matter of choices, i think. some recent advances in technology, both by way of pharma and devices, really make you pause for a moment. the cost escalation that will be built into usa consumer related to your premiums is going to be significant. the research that is necessary to get to these innovations, these new technologies, is very
costly. we are seeing our specialty drug costs as a total probably 4-5 fold in the next 3-4 years. this all has to get embedded in the total cost of care that you the consumer are responsible for. let me be clear, as a pair, we to absolutely committed paying for the use of best practices to cure disease and promote the betterment of one's life. the question we are struggling with because i believe we're in the cusp of significant cost escalators in the innovation arena, trying to figure out how to meld all that into what you are responsible for as a consumer, given that you have more exposure by way of higher deductibles, co-pays, higher out-of-pocket.
it ships to the consumer. consumer.to the it very difficult equation to balance going into the future. first, i think it's important to know that in 2009 in the debate we had about affordable care act come out there were two things we didn't talk about. one was the high price of hospital and physician care. the second was medical innovation, which has done more to improve the quality of life for more americans than anything else we've done in terms of health. inhibitors do more to reduce the instance of stroke and cardiovascular disease than almost anything else would do. incredibly important that we do more to be concerned about the high cost of medical innovation today. how much it costs. i did a study for the manhattan institute a couple years ago. has skyrocketed
because the fda has put more requirements on drug companies. particularly when they do studies for diseases that are common. if you are trying to develop a new drug for diabetes or a new drug for high blood pressure or high cholesterol, it costs billions of dollars to do those studies. the drug may fail or the drug may not be good enough. all that money has gone for not. on top of that, you add the fact that the affordable care act has drug companies that increase the risk for venture capitalists. the end result of all this, what you see pharmaceutical avoiding doing is developing new drugs. they are developing new drugs for rare diseases. why?
blocka is not going to you were drug that affects 4000 children. you will not be called in front of congress if that messes up. lowergulatory burden is and the pricing power is much higher. you can charge $100,000 for the product and insurers pay for it because none want to be the bad guy saying no you can't get the drug that saves your child's life. it's driving drug companies to develop drugs for ultra-rare diseases. was that the drug companies kind of picked a low hanging fruit in the chemical area. in the 1990's. when you actually look at drug all thath was growing
time and new drug applications, they went in opposite directions. there was a substantial decrease in the productivity of r&d that had nothing to do with the fda. which is strict, by international standards. they ran into diminishing ,eturns under traditional chemically based drugs. and therefore went into biologicals where, yes, it's focused on rare diseases and you can price. the poster boy everyone is talking about now, $1000 a pill. if i had been on the board, i would have said go to whole foods and see how they price their stuff. , nohey had price
journalist would have picked it up. overall, i think they will prove to be cost-effective relative to what we were already doing with these patients. it's actually a bad example for the anti-technologists to pick because of those cure the disease. there are others where it's more dubious. >> we are running out of time. as we mentioned, we have a much rudder audience here -- broader audience here. i would like to invite each of the panelists to make a closing short remark. maybe expanding on a point you've already made by the consumers driving change or collaboration. i would like to turn it over to you and then we will go down the panel. stimulating and
bringing this group together for this important conversation. i think i will borrow from dr. reinhardt's famous paper about prices. that's not something i addressed in my opening remarks. i want to encourage everyone to think about the role of your insurer in the context of prices. it is about the price at the end of the day. what we attempt to do as best we can on behalf of the customers who choose to pay as a premium, to become our customer pursuant to the contractual relationship, is to go into the marketplace and negotiate the best price that we can yield, combined with the best quality to make that available to the customer that is paying the premium. that is what we have traditionally done. that may be an overly simplistic
way of looking at any kind of entrance, but certainly health insurance. that is what we try to do. we are going to continue to try to do that and leverage all of the wonderful technologies and innovations and collaborations and things we can do to help bring and take pressure off of those prices. it's very important that we continue to do that. as we go forward, we all need to be vigilant about those that have a vested interest in keeping those prices high. as these innovative tools are rolled out, whether it's a or aactual arrangement particular device that has demonstrated to bring a price down, there are those that will advocate that we passed laws to prohibit them. we are seeing those conversations fall across
america as these new mechanisms are being developed. therefore, as a consumer, all of thatve to pay attention to very important health policy side. particular, and help all of us make the judgment of where we want those trade-offs to be. either advocate for those prohibitions, which will have a consequence, or advocate against them so that we can have more and greater flexibility to deliver that consumer value which everyone is demanding. thank you for the opportunity to be with you. thatwill piggyback on wonderful summary. what i would like to add, a couple of thoughts. everyassure you that entity, whether it's a provider or a pair, the business
community in the legislative arena, there is a pursuit of a new value proposition in the health care arena. i can speak for our organization that we are very engaged with all kinds of constituents, trying to vector toward a value proposition that best serves our public. is the fascinating reality of a public that has to become very educated with respect to how to access this new, brave new world we've come upon. when a consumer can't describe what it of the trouble is, we have a problem. -- what a deductible is, we have a problem. methodologies that reward value. we need consumers that completely understand the system. how to access it to better their
circumstances in terms of the health care they are demanding to improve their circumstances. we are very engaged in educating the public. partnering responsibility. i will close by saying that's why i kept emphasizing the necessity for collaboration in a spirit we have not witnessed in this industry in at least the four decades i've been a part of it. to hopeful that we are going make great strides going to the future to improve circumstances for the consumers we are serving in this new world. last week, i was asked to speak at the americans for prosperity defending the american dream summit. americans for prosperity is the big koch brothers outfit. they came by the busloads.
ted cruz spoke on the second day conference and said we will repeal every bit of obamacare and there was a standing ovation. i spoke to a subsection of that group and i gave a talk similar to the one i gave you today and i opened by asking the group, raise your hand if you're on medicare. more than half the room raised their hand. guess what, you're on single-payer health care. they were stunned by that. of course, this is a group that's very passionate about wanting to repeal obamacare. the trojan horse for single-payer medicine in america. what i would urge my conservative brethren to do is, we have to do a much better job of explaining to the public that we didn't have a market health care system in 2009. there were serious problems with access and cost in the health care system before 2010.
if our voters believe that repealing obamacare will fundamentally solve the health care problems in this country, it won't. i don't think we've done a good job of that and we have to do a better job and that's on us. encouraginge more remarks i've heard this morning from brad and joe is this issue of transparency. that's been missing. look at healthns care is a little bit like blindfolding people and shoving them into a macy's and saying go and buy a shirt efficiently and you come out with shorts that don't fit. half a year later, you get some bill that you don't understand. that's how it's been. that is clearly not how you can run anything that wants to engage market forces. don't need price
transparency because they negotiate a fee that applies to andy provider in the state every insurer. quality. need only here, we need both price and quality. and not hospital charges. what we have to pay out-of-pocket in going to the hospital or that doctor. i would like to note the total know the total price. paying?ction of my payin am i self-insured
carriers -- they have a cost estimator. you can put the doctor and the hospital and it gives you, but they are not binding prices. i would like to have binding prices. i phoned up the insurer and said, can you help me find normal delivery? the theory must have been that professors don't procreate. we do. [laughter] some of these are not as good as they should be. make sure these things are reliable. if a patient has to pay more than your custom-made or says, there is a way for the patient to tell you that so you can see
the variance and maybe talk to the provider and say, what are you doing? something to really make transparency work. then we can have more of a market. >> thank you. i would like to thank all of you for joining us today. i want to give a special thank carolyn andrine and katie mcdonald and their team. i would like to let everyone know that there will be a recording available on our website next week. finaljoin me now in a round of applause for our wonderful panelists. [applause]
[no audio] [no audio] >> in two weeks, citizens of scotland hold a referendum vote on whether to declare independence from the united kingdom. a recent survey reflecting scottish attitudes toward the referendum heard that's coming up at 3:30 eastern here on c-span. c-span's campaign 2014 coverage continues with a north carolina senate debate between kay hagan and tom tillis. both candidates are on a virtual dead heat -- in a virtual dead
heat. here is a look at some recent ads in that race. >> right there in black and lis drew am til bull's-eye in public schools. cutting nearly $500 million. he sliced and diced education, ourting chaos in classrooms while giving tax breaks to yacht and jet owners. cutting our schools, giving breaks to the wealthy. in the private sector, built ons are accountability. accountability is a foreign language in washington. obamacare is a disaster, but the president won't admit it. hagan refuses to clean up
her mess. asked why i'm running for u.s. senate. -- that's why i'm running for u.s. senate. >> they face off later today in that debate hosted by the north carolina association of broadcasters. it's 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. after that, c-span's issues spotlight program looks at campus sexual assault. john kelly testified in front of a senate health committee about his firsthand experience dealing with the trauma of the assault. here is a look. >> tufts university was under investigation and i made the was raped,hen i topped with still under investigation and i still didn't know. had i known, i could have chosen another school to begin with. --haps i would've attended they deny students the opportunity to make educated decisions and fo for
themselves. modicum ofe had a preparation for the humiliation i would endure at the hands of the administrators that i trusted to protect me. they did not protect me. i had no cause to suspect anything but support from them. i was thrilled to see that ocr recently released a list of schools currently under investigation, but that must become the norm. compel ocr to continuously and publicly release the names of schools under investigation so that my experience consume become an outlier and not the norm. my partner did not use physical force at first. he didn't use physical force until the last day of our relationship. in the months and weeks leading up to that moment, he utilized psychological and emotional abuse. it starts out as little things. a controlled move your, and outburst here. it starts with emotional and psychological abuse, but these
things are no means little. their effects are just as deleterious as any bruised or broken bones. in recent rulemaking, the department of education agreed that we do not have the authority to expand the definition of dating in the mystic violence to include emotional, psychological and economic abuse without the ying as much. policies and form expectations of culture and the expectation should not be to wait until you have a hospitalization under her belt and delete can report you r abuser and expect justice. can see the entire issues spotlight program tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. reporter about a actions taken by the white house to deal with the problem and pending legislation in congress. with concerns rising about russia's intervention in ukraine
, president obama visited estonia today to reassure ukrainian allies that the u.s. is serious about defending them. he spoke for 35 minutes. >> thank you for your wonderful introduction and for representing the talent and the energy and the optimism of today's estonia. especially its young people. oscar is sitting next to his father. his father and i agree that we are getting great, so we have to make sure that somebody is coming up behind us. give oscar a great round of applause for the great job he did. [applause] to the president and distinguished guest and the people of estonia, it is a great
pleasure to be with you in this historic city and the speed of the land. -- this beautiful land. i thank you for the hospitality each of me today. i've been assured that the weather is always like this. my only regret is that i missed -- i will try to come back next time and catch it. i bring with me the friendship of the american people and i'm honored to be the first president of the united states to deliver an address like this to the people of estonia. i just had the opportunity to meet once again with the presidents of all the baltic states. latvia the president of and lithuania for being here. by friends from throughout the region and i want to say a special welcome to everyone watching this out in freedom square.
i'm especially pleased to see some of the young people here today. like oscar, you are fulfilling the dream that your parents and grandparents struggled for, but could only imagine. that is, living your lives in free and independent and democratic baltic nations. that dream of freedom and word through centuries of occupation -- endured through centuries of occupation. it blossomed into independence only to have it stolen by four impacts and secret protocols ash reign pacts and secret protocols. it was sustained by poets and others who kept alive your language.
in estonia, it was a dream that found its most eloquent expression in your voices. on grassy fields not far from here when estonians found the courage to stand up against an empire and sing, land of my fathers, land that i love. he said, one day, no matter what, we will win. [applause] then, exactly 25 years ago, people across the baltics came together in one of the greatest displays of freedom and nonviolent resistance that the world has ever seen. on that august evening, perhaps 2 million people stepped out of ed hands.es and join han
human chain of freedom the baltic way. they stretched down highways and across farmlands. they lit candles and sing anthems. old men and women brought out their flags of independence and young parents brought their children to teach them that when ordinary people stand together, great change is possible. here in estonia, when people joined the line, the password was freedom. they come said that of the berlin wall is made of brick and concrete. our wall is stronger. and that was. within months, that wall in berlin was pushed over. the next year, the baltic
peoples finally voted in elections. madethe forces of the past their last grab for power, you stood up. lithuanians faced down tanks. tallin, citizens rushed to defend the airwaves. you reclaim your countries. in your new constitution, you declared the independence and sovereignty of estonia are timeless and inalienable. of the baltic nations also knew that freedom needs a foundation of security. so, you reached out to join the nato alliance. we were proud to welcome u.s. new allies so that those were severe constipation were timeless and will always be
guaranteed by the strongest military alliance the world has ever known. are working to build their own democracies. they look to you for inspiration. cautions thate progress is neither easy nor quick. here in the baltics, after decades of authoritarian rule, democracy had to be learned. the institutions of good governance had to be built. economies had to be reformed. foreign forces had to be removed from your territories. and transitions of this magnitude are daunting for any nation. but the baltics show the world what is possible. when free people come together for the change that they seek. ideast great contest of between freedom and authoritarianism, between
-- and and depression oppression, your success proves that the human chain and our way will always be stronger. we are stronger because we are democracies. we are not afraid of free and fair elections because true legitimacy can only come from one source and that is the people. of an not afraid independent judiciary because no one is above the law. we are not afraid of of a free press or vibrant debate or a strong civil society. leaders must be held accountable. we are not afraid to let our young people go online to learn and discover and organize. we know that countries are more successful when citizens are free to think for themselves.
we are stronger because we embrace open economies. look at the evidence. here in estonia, we see the success of free markets. integration with europe, taking on tough reforms. you've become one of the most wired countries on earth. a global leader in e-government and high-tech startups. the entrepreneurial spirit of the estonian people has been unleashed. your innovations like skype are transforming the world. and we are stronger because we stand together. year, we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the baltics in nato. one decade ago, skeptics wondered if your countries were up to the task. today, they need only look at
our training exercises where our troops grow even stronger together shoulder to shoulder. they can look at afghanistan where our forces have sacrificed together to keep a safe. in just three months, the largest operation in nato history will come to an end as planned. there is no doubt, the baltics have made our alliance stronger. your progress reflects the larger truth. because of the work of generations, because we stood together in a great alliance, because people across this continent have forged a european union dedicated to the , we haveon and peace made historic progress towards the vision we share. a europe that is whole and free and at peace. yet, as we gather here
today, we know that this vision is threatened. by russia's aggression against ukraine. thes a brazen assault on territorial integrity of ukraine. challenges that most basic of principles by international s.tizen that borders cannot be redrawn at the barrel of a gun. nations have a right to determine their own future. it undermines the international order where the rights of are upheld and can't be taken away by brute force. this is what's at stake in ukraine. this is why we stand with the people of ukraine today. [applause]
rest, once and for all, the distortions or outdated thinking that has caused this crisis. our nato alliance is not aimed against any other nation. we are an alliance of democracies dedicated to our own collective defense. countries like estonia and latvia and lithuania are not post-soviet territories. you are sovereign and independent nations with a right to make your own decisions. no other nation gets to veto your security decisions. ukraine were not led by neo-nazis or fascist. they were led by ordinary ukrainians. ,en and women, young and old
who were fed up with a corrupt and who wanted to share in the progress and prosperity they see in the rest of europe. they did not engage in an arms seizure of power. after an agreement was brokered , theonstitutional reform former president abandoned his office and parliament endorsed new elections. so that, today come ukrainians have a new deman democratically elected president. i look forward to inviting him to the white house this month. it was not the government of kiev that destabilized ukraine. has been progression separatists
who are encouraged by russia from a finance by russia, trained by russia, supplied by russia and armed by russia. russian forces that have now moved into ukraine are not on a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission. they are russian combat forces with russian weapons in russian tanks. these are the facts. provable. they are not subject to dispute. of propaganda, many russians have been convinced that the actions taken by their government is strengthening russia. reaching back to the days of the rs, trying to reclaim land lost in the 19th century is not the way to secure russia's greatness in the 20th century. [applause]
it only shows that nationalism is the last refuge of those who cannot or will not deliver real progress and opportunity for their own people at home. let's also be clear where we stand. we refuse to accept smaller european nations being dominated by bigger neighbors in the last century, we reject any talk of spheres of influence today. [applause] just as we never accepted the occupation and illegal annexation of the baltic nations, we will not accept russia's occupation and illegal annexation of crimea or any part of the grain. -- any part of ukraine. [applause] alliance,oples, as an
we will stand firm and united to meet the test of this moment. curious how. how. we will defend our nato allies. that means every ally. in this alliance, there are no old members or new members. no junior partners or senior partners. they're just allies. pure and simple. we will defend the territorial integrity of every single ally. today, more nato aircraft patrolled the sky of the baltics. more american forces are on the ground rotating through each of the baltic states. more nato ships to troll the the black-- patrol sea. tonight, i depart for the nato summit in wales and i believe our alliance should extend these defensive measures for as long as necessary.
is justnse of tallinn as important as the defense of religion and paris and london -- of berlin and paris and london. [applause] during the long so be patient, estonian poet cried to the world, come to help, now. i say to the people of estonia and the people of the baltics, today we are bound by our treaty alliance. we have a solemn duty to each other. article five is crystal clear. an attack on one is an attack on all. if you ever ask again, who will come to help, you will know the
answer. the nato allies come including the armed forces of the nine states america, right here, present, now. [applause] -- the united states of america. we will be here for estonia, lot atvia,ithuania -- lo lithuania. you lost your independence before. with nato, you will never lose began. -- lose it again. [applause] in addition to the measures we've already taken, the united states is working to bolster the security of our nato allies and further increase america's military presence in europe. initiative i proposed in warsaw the spring includes several elements and we are working with congress to get it
done. here in the baltics, it would mean positioning more american equipment so it's ready if needed. it would mean more training and exercises between our militaries. it would mean more u.s. forces come including american boots on the ground continuously rotating through estonia and lot via and tvia anda -- la lithuania. no forces need the ability to deploy even faster in times of crisis. forces. our alliance must unite around a new plan to enhance our readiness. that means we need to step up our defense planning so we are fully prepared for any threat to any ally. it also means we need to have the infrastructure and facilities that can receive rapid reinforcements. enhance a response
force so it can deplore even more quickly to deter threats. even as we meet conventional threats, we have to face other challenges. that includes propaganda campaigns to try to whip up fears and divide people from one another. reject the idea that people cannot live and thrive together just because they have different backgrounds or speak it different language. -- a different language. the best antidote to such distorted thinking are the values that define us. baltics, buthe throughout europe. we must acknowledge the inherent dignity and human rights of every person because our democracies cannot truly succeed until we root out bias and prejudice from our institutions and our hearts.
freeve to uphold press and freedom of speech. lies and misinformation on a match for the truth. our countries are more successful and more prosperous when we welcome the talents of all of our people, including minorities. that is part of the work we must do. [applause] set.s the example we must fourth, even as we keep our country's strong at home, we have to keep our lights strong for the future. that means investing in the capabilities like intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance and missile-defense. here in europe, nations need to the growthspur and prosperity that sustains our alliance. to its great credit come estonia stands out as an ally that
contributes its full share, its full 2% of gdp to the defense of our alliance. atvia and lithuania have pledged to do the same. [applause] this weeks summit is a moment for every nato nation to step up and commit to meeting its responsibilities to our alliance. estonia does it. every ally must do it. fifth, we must continue to stand united against russia's aggression in ukraine. [applause] keep in mind that repeatedly, president putin has ignored the
opportunity to resolve the crisis in ukraine diplomatically. the united states, the european union, our partners around the prefer ae all said we diplomatic solution. of russia's unwillingness to seize that opportunity, we have two come together to impose major sanctions on russia for his actions. make no mistake, russia is paying a price. capital is fleeing. foreign investment is plummeting. investors know that today's russia is a bad bet given his behavior. has slippedeconomy into recession. it's energy production, the engine of the russian economy, is inspected to drop. credit rating near junk status. the rubel just felt when all time low.
in short, russia's actions in ukraine are weakening russia. russia's actions are hurting the russian people. way.esn't have to be this we have no interest in weakening russia. it's a nation with a rich history and a remarkable people. we do not seek out confrontation with russia. over the past two decades, the united states has gone to great lengths to welcome rush into the community of nations and to encourage its economic success. we welcome a russia that is strong and growing and contributes to international security and peace and that results disputes peacefully with diplomacy. contrast to russia's isolation and economic woes which wouldpath
include a stable and prosperous ukraine whose sovereignty is respected would also ultimately result and greater respect for russia -- in greater respect for russia. that path remains available to russia. that path will deliver truer progress for the russian people. but it's a path that starts by russia changing course and leaving ukraine so that ukraine can make their own decisions. i have no doubt that one of their decisions will be to have strong relations with the not just europe, but also with russia. it has to be freely chosen. this brings me to the final area where our nations have to come together.
support forfast those who reach up for their freedom. including the people of ukraine. few understand this better than the baltic peoples. experienceom bitter that we can never take our security and liberties for granted. we want ukrainians to be independent and strong and able to make their own choices free from fear and intimidation. because the more countries are free and strong and free from intimidation, the more secure our own the parties are. -- liberties are. the united states will continue ukraine reform to build democratic institutions and growth economy. like other european nations, diversify its energy sources because no country should ever
be held hostage to another nation that wheels energy like a weapon -- wields energy like a weapon. [applause] we will continue to offer training and assistance to help the ukrainian military grow stronger as they defend their country. since there is no military solution to this crisis, we will continue to support the president's efforts to achieve peace. nations,independent ukraine must be free to decide its own dust me. -- its own destiny. must send an unmistakable message in support of ukraine as well. has had ace partnership with ukraine for more than 20 years. ukrainian forces have served with distinction in the balkans and afghanistan. in wales, we will meet as alliance with the president to
show that are 28 nations are united in support of ukraine's sovereignty and right to de fend its territory. nato needs to make concrete commitments to help ukraine modernize and strengthen its security forces. we have to do more to help other nato partners, including georgia and moldova. [applause] we must reaffirm the principles that have always guided our alliance. ourcountries that meet standards and that can make meaningful contributions to allied security, the door to nato membership will remain open. this is a moment of testing.
the actions of the separatists ought toe and russia be consigned to a distant history. men storming buildings, soldiers without flags slipping across the border. violence sending families fleeing and killing thousands, when thatnearly 300 airliner was shot out of the sky. in the face of violence, it seems intractable. it is easy to gross nickel. -- to grow cynical. to give in to the notion that peace and security may be beyond our grasp. i say to all of you here today, especially the young people, do not give into that cynicism.
do not lose the idealism and optimism that is the root of all great change. [applause] faith thatlose the says if we wanted and we are willing to work for it and we stand together, the future can be different. tomorrow can be better. after all, the only reason we are here today in a free and democratic estonia is because the estonian people never gave up. up when the red army came in from the east or when the nazis came in from the west. you never gave up when the soviets came back or when it's in your best and brightest to the gulags, never to return. you never gave up through a long
occupation to try to break your spirit and crush your culture. tanks were no equal for the moral power of your voices coming united in song. the walls were no match for the strength of your people coming united in that unbreakable chain. hungarians,es and the checks and the slovaks and east germans on top of that wall , you were stronger and you always believed, one day, no matter what, we will win. example, your victory gives hope to people all over the world. and there will be setbacks there will be frustrations and there will be moments of doubt and moments of despair. but currents of history evan ebb and flow.
over time, they flow toward freedom. more people standing up and reaching to claim those rights that are universal. that's why come in the end, our ideals are stronger. dignity will win because every human being is born equal with free will and inalienable rights. any regime or system of government that tries to deny these rights will fail and countries that uphold them will only grow stronger. win because might does not make right. to lasting peace is when people know their dignity will be respected and the rights will be upheld and citizens like nations will never settle for a world where the are allowed to leave the small. sooner or later, they fight back. [applause]
democracy will win. they governments legitimacy can only come from citizens because andhis age of information empowerment, people want more control over their lives, not less. more than any other form of government ever devised, only democracy, rooted in the sanctity of the individual can deliver real progress. win.reedom will not because it is inevitable, not because it is ordained, but because basic human yearnings for dignity, justice and democracy do not go away. suppressed, at times they can be silenced. but they earn in every human
heart and -- in a place no regime can never reach in the light no army can ever extinguish. so long as free peoples summon the confidence, courage, and the will to defend the values we cherish, then freedom will always be stronger and our ied is will always prevail. -- our ideas will always prevail. thank you, and long live our great alliance will stop thank you very much. [applause] morningdent obama this in estonia. about 20 minutes ago, cbs tweeted the president has arrived at the celtic manor resort in newport wales, the sign of the summit -- the site of the summit. our campaign coverage continues later today with the north
carolina senate debate between kay hagan and republican challenger tom tillis. according to a recent university poll, both candidates are in a dead heat. the debate is hosted by the north carolina association of run casters live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. looking at our primetime schedules, starting at 8:00 here on c-span, our issues spotlight program continues with a look at campus sexual assault will stop that in his book tv with authors interviewed on her afterwards program. tv, withican history events looking at the war in 1812 and the burning of. an hour, in about half we will take you live to the wilson center for remarks from scotland's university of edinburg will stop they will be talking about the upcoming referendum in scotland when the scots will vote whether to have independence from the united kingdom.
they also talk about a recent survey of scottish attitudes toward the referendum. until then, we will take you to london for prime minister's questions with david cameron. he discussed the scottish independence vote and condemned by murder of a journalist isis. we will show you this until the discussion on the scottish referendum gets underway at 3:30. questions to the prime minister. mr. eric joyce. >> not here. >> the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am sure the whole house and the whole country will join with me in condemning these sickening and brutal murder of another american hostage and share our shock and anger that appears to have been carried out by a
british citizen. all of our thoughts are with the british hostage and their family. there were deal is unimaginable. but let me be clear -- this country will never give in to terrorism. our opposition will continue at home and abroad. it is important we are clear about the nature of the threat we are facing. facing. it makes no distinction between cultures, countries and religions. there's no way to appease it. the only way to defeat it is to stand firm and descended very straightforward message, a country like ours will not be cowed by these barbell at -- barbaric killers but if they think we will weaken in the face of the threats they are wrong. it will have the opposite of that. we'll be more forthright in the defense of values, nobody under the rule of law, freedom, democracy that we hold dear. i am sure a united message to that effect will go forward from this house today.
>> mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> mr. speaker, can indulge with the prime minister as suggested about the american hostage. can i say to the prime minister, when he some years ago, he said he wanted to stop the conservatives going on about your. what has happened? >> a lot of things have changed in europe, not least the eurozone crisis which had been used but is beginning to reappear. this has created an enormous attention within the european union come those countries within the eurozone that need further integration and of those countries outside the eurozone that want to have a more flexible relationship with your. and its absolute right we debate and discuss these matters in the south that above all it is right we include the british people. and under my plan they will have a decisive say. [shouting]
>> thank you, mr. speaker. will be prime minister join me in congratulating all the businesses in my constituency who had over the last year reduce unemployment by 36%. does he agree with me it's evident our long-term economic plan is working? >> well, i'm delighted to join my honorable friend in that way. unemployment is coming down right across the country. in east includes the number of people in work is up by 400,000 since the election, private sector blood is up, the number of business is up, investment is up in the news today we have about the gdp figure revisions showed that since 2010 this country has grown faster than france, faster than germany, faster than any major economy apart from canada and the united states of america. there should be any complacency because the job is not yet done but our long-term economic plan is working and it is the way to secure a better future for our
country. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i joined the prime minister and expressing the universal sense of repulsion as the barbaric murder of steve sotloff and expressing deep concern about the british hostage being held. this will be a terrible time for his family. and people across the country will be thinking of them. and mr. speaker, this is a pattern of nervous behavior i isil of the innocent. distance, yazidis, muslims, anyone who does not agree with with their vile ideology. and i agree with what the prime minister says, events like this must strengthen, not weaken our resolve to defeat them and he can be assured of our full support in standing firm against them. >> here, here. >> can i thank the leader of the opposition of what you said in a way in which he said but i think this house should send a united message. i think what has happened to the two hostages so far and what may happen again in the future is
utterly aborted and barbaric and these people need to understand we will not waver in her aim of defeating terrorism. and that is not something that divides this house politically. it is something that everyone and i suspect the entire of our country agrees with me. [inaudible] not just in britain but across the world. does you further agree with me that we and countries in the region have a final humanitarian and security interest in overcoming isil? can i ask them what progress is being made to mobilize other countries including turkey, saudi arabia, qatar, and regional bodies especially the arab league against isil? >> i think the way the leader of the opposition is approaching this. isn't on the right. we should see this crisis as one where we are there to help the people on the ground and the countries in the region that want to solve this crisis. we should not see this as one where it is a semi-western led intervention.
we have the kurds and defending communities including minority communities from horrors of isil. with the government in baghdad which badly needs to get itself together so to represent all of the country and then we with allies and neighbors can do more to make sure that this appalling organization, isil, feels the full pressure of international and regional and local condemnation. that is what should be done. as he says we should be using all the assets we have focusing first on humanitarian aid and saving people from persecution, hunger and starvation, using our diplomatic and political pressures to make sure there is a government in baghdad that can represent all the country, and marshaling working with others so the maximum under pressure is put on. if we continue in that way always asking ourselves how can others in the neighborhood do their work, how can we help them and had to be best if in our national interest and deeper people say that home, that is the right approach. >> i agree in building the partnership is vital in the weeks and months ahead.
the u.n. is a key part of building the legitimacy and effectiveness of the alliance against iso. in addition to u.n. security council resolution passed in the last few weeks, can he tell us what plans he has to use the uk's share of the skewed council to build the international consensus he talked about? >> well, so far we've used the united nations the pressure on isil by making the people should not be providing resources or sanctuary to these people. indeed, they should be cut off. that is been the approach so far but we do have an opportunity through the u.n. to marshal international support and backing for the views that this isil so-called islamic caliphate is unacceptable and needs to be squeezed out of existence. that is what we should do and we should aim to get the maximum support through the u.n. for the measures right across the board that are being taken. >> turning to the threat we face in britain, people will been shocked and disgusted they were british voices on the video and the british citizens are part of
isil. on monday the prime minister announced he would reintroduce location bars for suspected terrorist. he has our full support. can you confirm this will go ahead? can even indication of the timetable for bringing these powers for? >> i can't confirm it will go ahead and it is going to require legislation to the key is to put the desires and advisor david anderson is the independent reviewer of terrorism, to put those into action. what he is spoken about is some combination of exclusion and relocation. it is that that needs to be reintroduced into the terrorism prevention and investigation measures but i think we should try to do that on a cross party basis to send the clearest possible message editing urgency is the order of the day. >> try to the best way to deal with terrorists of course prosecution -- on monday also proposed the possibility of blocking british citizens from returning to the uk.
given there's some doubt cast on ms. kinney say a bit more on whether he believes this is legally permissible and again whether there are plans to take this forward to? >> the short answer is i do believe it is legal but it will take some work for this reason that we already have the power when people are trying to return to the united kingdom if it is a foreign national we can exclude them even if they've lived here for any number of years. it is a national you can strip them of their british citizenship and excuse them. it is a naturalized britain you can under our new laws passed recently through this house, you can strip them of their british nationality. but i do believe there is a gap where you have someone born, raised as a british citizen like the individual we discuss on monday from eyewitness single want to return in order to do harm to our country. of course, the best thing to do is to gather evidence, prosecute convict and imprison incredibly there may be occasions when what we need to exclude and so, therefore, we should fill the gap and i believe it is legal impossible to do.
>> mr. speaker, of course will look at the practicality of legality of any proposal he comes forward with. finally, can ask them to revisit the case or strengthening the present program for resources and committee engagement? after all that is essential to stop people being indoctrinated into this voices ideology. we do need to -- across the world against isil and strong and considered actions here at home. it's what the world needs. it's with average people expect and then pursuing this o course you will have our full support. >> i thanked him for his support. on to prevent a program will we have done is try to divide up the different outlets of it. there is one part which is about unity cohesion which is best led on by the department of culture, department of communities and local government to the of the park is run by the home office through the present program. that is what we've done. what i think we need to be clear about is it's not enough to target those who preach by the extremism. we need to go after those that
promote the extremist narrative and life view that gives the terrorists and the men of violence support for what they do. it's not unlike the cold war where we did not just pursue those who wanted to do such harm. we were set to challenge all those who gave them suffer. that is what we need to do in this struggle which i think will last for decades and we need to show resilience and as you said unity in pursuing it. >> in this parliament our coalition government has increased health spending by over 17 billion pounds a year. [shouting] as a direct consequence to that, the block grant to scotland which supports funding in scotland has increased by 1.7 billion pounds a year. does by right honorable friend agree with me that this -- propaganda about the nhs?
>> my right honorable friend is absolutely right, because of the decisions we took, long-term decisions after a careful assessment to increase been on the health service that is given extra money for scotland has been on the nhs so that is one of our examines claims. a second claim that somehow a westminster government could privatize half of it in a just and scotland is complete and utter nonsense. the only person who could privatize parts of nhs scotland is alex salmond. you can tell someone has lost the argument when they start making ludicrous ideas about what they would do themselves. >> there's been word in the court over the past week about a rise in malnutrition. going back to children going home after the school holy. -- holiday.
[inaudible] it's his job to do something about this. >> i think it is welcome all entrants will preschool meals as they go to school this week, and that will be welcomed to many comes up and down the country. the evidence is 99% of schools are providing those preschool meals. i have to say the best way we can tell people is get more people into work, and we are coming to make a our economy continues to grow and make sure it delivers for hard-working people. i know the labour party want to give his narrative up and running about in equality but let me give them some statistics to show why it is not true. there are 300,000 fewer children in poverty than when labour were in office. [shouting] in equality in our country has gone down and not up. one of the series courses of poverty, long-term youth unemployment, is now lower than when this government came to office. that is how we're changing people's lives and changing people's life chances. >> a prime minister a great
friends in the middle east to share a basic commitment to pluralism, democracy and peaceful change from syrian national coalition, palestine to the elected government of kurdistan and libya and we hope iraq must by now be fighting british support inconsistent, fragmented and and strategic. isn't it time for more consistent strategy? >> i don't agree at all with the honorable gentleman. i think this government has massively increased our engagement with the gulf and middle eastern states. everybody knows that our view is that you in favor of democracy, of human rights come of the building blocks of democracy but also of naïve interventionists to believe you can drop democracy out of the back of an airplane. it needs to be built. they know that is what you do we engage with all of those states en route to maximize not just our influence by the chance of regional stability in that vital area. >> does the prime minister share public concern that terrible
abuse can happen to children? most recently a 1400 sexually abused girls. yet directors of social services and other senior officers pay no penalty, and often move on to even higher paid jobs. surely, it's the context of the people at the top mean they cannot be stacked in such circumstances, maybe the contracts need looking at. >> i agree entirely with what the honorable lady has said that first of all what we've seen is deeply shocking, and as i said i think it demonstrates a failure in the local government system there in the children's services department and in policing, and all those issues need to be addressed which is why vast the home secretary to chair a group of ministers to look at how we learn the lessons even before we get our child abuse inquiry fully under way. we are -- where she is right is that local authorities when they
employ these people should look carefully at the contracts and make sure that the people don't do the job properly, they can be removed. it's of vital. you cannot please all of this from white help your local government has responsibly for the people it employs and should hold them to account. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i concur with the prime minister's earlier comments on bad behavior and say we all stand right behind him. track of his net migration in uk has continued at the present level we can fill a city the size of leads every three years. it's not only unsustainable but potentially a stabilizing to the country. does my right honorable friend i agree with me that the sooner we adopt of these only system for all foreign nationals, the sovereign parliament to decide his those are the best? >> first walk in a thank my auto honorable friend for what he
says about the stamp of us all take against terror and terrorism. on the issue of immigration, we have done a huge amount to restrict migration from outside the european union and the figures are down almost 30% since this government came to office. we are closed and 700 bogus colleges. we introduce an economic limit but i agree we need to do more. of course, freedom of movement is important principle but it is not an unqualified right and it should not be the freedom of movement to claim benefits and we should make sure when new member states join the european union, we don't necessarily have transitional controls that simply last for a number of years. where transitional controls that make sure they will not have full access to our markets until their economies are of a different size and shape. >> the most recent uk ambassador to nato has today said that an independent scotland would be welcome in nato and that she is voting yes in the referendum just like so many other undecided voters who want a
better scotland. earlier this year the prime minister get a commitment on scottish television to take part in a program with undecided voters before the referendum. will he be doing that or running a we just as he ran away from the foreign minister in the debate? >> on scottish television i asked a format and, indeed, they seem to run away themselves. [shouting] on nato, i refer to listen to loren roberts, the segregation of nato is absolutely clear that scotland will be better off inside the united kingdom and the united kingdom will be better off with scotland. and the problem with the right honorable gentleman when it comes to all of the big questions, what currency with a separate scotland use? will we be the position in data? what would be the position in the european union? they've not been able to provide a single credible answer. >> does the prime minister agree
with me that one, it is accepted to hold an opinion, it is not acceptable to promote boycotts of goods produced in israel are kosher goods and bits of policy of -- with judaism and also in turn anti-semitism. what reassurance can the prime minister get my constituents that this government will address boycotts and anti-semitism and united kingdom? >> we have been very clear that we don't support boycotts and we don't support measures that are intended to delegitimize the state of israel which has a right to exist. we argue has a right to piece within its proper borders. and i do think he makes an important point, which is wished absent a clear that you can criticize israel and israeli government for its actions without being anti-semitic. but what we've seen in recent
weeks is a rise in anti-semitic attacks in the country but as i said on monday that is completely unacceptable. >> could i refer the prime minister to -- does the prime minister agree that a common thread in the -- summit has been referred to earlier -- [inaudible] all to often be driven by considerations other than the best interest of the child? and reflect a sad lesson for all of us will be agreed to remand the modern slavery vote -- summit with reflecting the best interest of the child to all the relevant authorities and the service is? >> i am very proud of the fact that this government is introducing the modern slavery bill, a bill in strong support and i will care that the specific suggestion that he makes. let me make a brief comment on the other points that he makes. i think to be fair to the authorities involved in the
case, they all want to do the best for the child but that is what they're thinking of i think what happened was the decisions were taken that were not correct and didn't chime with a sense of common sense and that unfortunate been put right. what all of us in public life and public offices have to do is examine with the legal requirements or but also make a judgment and those judgments can sometimes be more important. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if even the respected hampshire police can use the european arrest warrants a great and injustice, can my right honorable friend have any confidence that other member states with less well-developed legal systems will not use the arrest warrants for worse purposes in the future? >> what i would say to my honorable friend, i respect his argument, police are, they can make their judgment and is a just and they don't always get those judgments right. the question i'd ask ourselves
in this house is we have to think about a situation potentially where a terrorist has attacked our country and is on the run for europe to other countries and how quickly want to be able to get that person back in front of our courts to face british justice. there's not an imagine a set of circumstances to this is exactly what happened in 2005 after the dreadful london bombing. so we do need to think about this. i am all for making sure that powers afloat from brussels to london, and they have been the case of justice and home affairs will we have repatriated over 100 measures. but i also want to be a prime minister who can with the british people in the eye and say we'll keep you safe from series crime, from terrorism and put people back in front of british courts as soon as possible. >> thank you, mr. speaker. prime minister, we now know in the event of separation scotland would no longer -- that was a good laugh. [laughter] >> will no longer have a formal
-- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> response, an independent scotland share the national debt. stomach. [inaudible] i think it is one of the most chilling things that has been said in this referendum campaign that a separate scotland would consider defaulted on its debt. we all know what happens if you don't pay your debt. no one will lend you any money and you pay an interest rate. we all know what that means for homeowners, much, much higher mortgage rates. for businesses crippling interest rates. those are the consequences of what the separatists are proposing and we need to get our message out loud and clear in the coming days. [shouting] >> spent for all the reasons that have been given, if we were to lose the unions that would not only be a disaster for scotland but a national
humiliation of catastrophic proportions. but. [inaudible] perhaps would've been a bit complacent up to now. me i urge them in the next two weeks to drop everything else, stand shoulder to shoulder to fight for the game we love and believe in? >> i think my honorable friend is absolutely -- >> order. just a moment, prime minister. mr. mcneal, you ought i decent chap, you are very over excitable, very over excitable individual. you should calm down. you aspire to be a statesman. try behaving like one. the prime minister. >> i agree with my honorable friend about the importance of this referendum. what i would say is i think the leaders of the parties in the south have all put aside their differences and said in spite of the political differences we have, we all agree about one thing. not just that scotland is better off inside the united kingdom by
the united kingdom is better off with scotland inside. perhaps as well as the leader of the conservative party, as a member of parliament for an english seed i say on behalf of everyone in england and was in northern ireland we want scotland to stay. [shouting] >> prime minister we're all very aware of your interest in the middle east and particularly iraq. what is happened since were last year for pmqs a particular the last 24 hours. [inaudible] christians have been displaced, they're been beheadings, they've been told to convert or die. it is time to consider further action for christians and additional sanctions against isil? >> i think we should do everything we can to protect them persecute miners including christians but also the yazidi communities and that's her we been using our resources but after nevada's most been humanitarian aid which we been delivered through a militant asset, through raf planes come working with others to make sure they are protected but we should
also as part of the strategy work with the kurds and others so the isil can be beaten back and the christians and others are persecuted. >> increasing numbers of british family are leaving the uk because they believe they will get a more fair trial in family courts abroad rather than family courts he. does the prime minister agree with me that parliament should look at the reasons for this? >> we do break into the debate in this house family law. this government has made some amendments to family law after long debates within government and in this house and it is arguing they should be for the parliamentary opportunities but, of course, there are backbench days and other opportunities to raise these issues. >> given the birthday present given to him from the member my clutch and come how many more birthday surprises ac expecting from the tory backbenchers? >> i'm sure i will get all sorts of pleasant surprises on my
birthday. please don't spoil it by letting me know what they are. [laughter] [shouting] [inaudible] failed to provide a plan b should scotland become independent. does the prime minister agre >> watch "prime minister's questions" online and on c-span.org. the prime minister receiving a lot of questions about scottish independence from the united kingdom. it's the focus of a discussion this afternoon in washington where they will hear from you on i sure from edinburg who talks about a new survey reflecting scottish attitudes toward the referendum. they are just getting started live here on c-span. >> is the key for him for attacking global issues through independent research and local
dialogue with a goal of forming actionable ideas for policymakers and the broader policy community. the center's program on global europe addresses vital issues affecting europe's relations through rest world scholars and residents, many of whom just arrived yesterday. seminars, international conferences and publications. these activities cover topics like european energy security and europe's role in setting global standards with governments and human rights. today, we are focusing on a problem that has not existed in an active sense in europe for some years but is heating up again. that's the issue of secession, ofably scotland on the eve the referendum for independence. this referendum will occur on september 18 and will decide
whether the country will be the first western european state in recent history to secede. after two years of campaigning, it would seem many of the issues are sorted out and the public has a good understanding of them and the media has -- has shared that understanding with us. but our speaker today, using very recent data and the only large scale representative, comprehensive survey research in scotland will show where this general list of about scott's that may beard empirically wrong. after showing where the polls stand and what we may expect as polling day approaches, this will focus on how the attitudes of scottish people in international affairs have often inn misrepresented, particular with relation to the european union, scotland's role in the world and nuclear weapons in scotland. the talk will identify issues that will still move the in
either direction before casting their votes will stop those of you who see the financial times, there are three stories today, provoked in part by a poll released on tuesday. it's it shows the race as closed at least to a 57 to a 57 243 vote in favor of no -- that is the continuance of the u.k.. this poll has a margin of error of's or minus three, so if correct, it has closed quite a bit the polls of at least three weeks ago which were showing an average of 18% to 20% gap. it is our privilege today to us tohe doctor with discuss this issue. he is a specialist on survey research and is currently the at theand policy chair
adversity of edinburgh school of political science. he's the principal investigator on to economic and social research council funded projects on the future of the u.k. and scotland. it is investigating the attitude of scots in relation to this referendum. it is a pleasure to welcome you here and we look forward to your comments. he has a powerpoint and we will go through some interesting slides which we can discuss in greater detail. >> thank you and thank you for the opportunity to speak about the referendum. opportunity to speak about outside of scotland because the discussion becomes a politicalssionate and at times, especially in the more heated context that we have right now. very briefive you a background to the study. if you have more questions, feel free to ask.
i want to outline the situation right now taste on our data and the data based on the polls we have conducted. then i want to discuss what counts for voters because what has been said and certain topics have dominated the discourse, but what is crucial is what voters think and what differentiates yes from no voters will stop specifically, looking at attitude towards the eu and scotland's role in the world. shorty, i close with two bits -- the issue of referendum turnout which is crucial for the anyone but for interested in democracy, crucial because we may see items that go beyond the referendum and a specific item saw the voting age lowered to 16. the question might be whether that is a good idea or not?
i will speak at most four 40 minutes so that we have time to speak afterwards. rush through the slides quite a bit but they will be made available if you want to study them in more detail. the idea is to give you a broad overview so that you can pick your topics for discussion afterward. now 15kground, it is days away. in scotland, people are noticing, even people who have been researching this for two years, this is actually happening. we have been working on it for years and we have to campaign groups come a that you might know, the yes scotland focused her on the scotland national party in government at the moment and have the majority of seats in the scottish parliament and could ask for this referendum to take place. agreement within the u.k. government, so it is not one directional.
accept thewill outcome of this referendum. if it is a yes vote, scotland will likely become independent. on the other side, there's a campaign advocating for a no vote and scotland staying in the union will stop that is largely made up of three unionist parties -- conservatives, labor him and the liberal democrats and by alastair darling, former chancellor of the exchequer. the background is to projects. it is public funding that fund this research which means i am entirely politically neutral. we have been accused of both sides by favoring the other, so that shows we are neutral come i think. i have no particular view one way or the other. cottage --ere -- the the scottish social attitude survey that has been conducted
-- we are partners in this together from the university of edinburgh. it is a high-quality, face to face survey and the most comprehensive on political attitudes in scotland neck goes through stringent design processes and with the funding we receive, we could develop large modules for specific questions on the referendum. tohave a time dating back 1999 that allows us to check how some of these things have developed the establishment of the scottish parliament. where you cansite access all the data on constitutional change from the survey. the aim is to create research andof it to ring the debate it is run by the scottish social research. there is a specific survey of
19-year-olds because when the voting age was lowered, young people are not engaged and will not vote, but we have been data because they are not usually part of the electorate. we are also one of the parents of the young person who was interviewed. we reduce research results but have developed a set of teaching researches -- teaching research. as i said, i want to keep this brief and start talking about the actual results. what is the situation right now eschew mark the first simply shows you a plot of all the polls that have then conducted
since the referendum has been agreed. should scotland be an independent country? i already got my voting ballot. is the nose,here the bottom in blue, yes. what you see is there is no single opinion poll apart from the one commission that had leading questions and all other the leadw no was in and that has been consistent. we also see it's a bit narrower toward the end. it also looks as if there's a lot of volatility. differences so much is the different polling institutes have come up with very different results and very different baselines. polled at thetly
higher-end and some at the lower end. the reason it is so difficult to poll here is the turnout is expected to be very high. a lot of people who don't usually vote will be taking part. that is the reason polling institutes have come up with different results. it is hard to say which ones are right. assess, sohard to what we usually do is use the averages. it doesn't mean the averages right, but a gives us the best view. in thet of holes move same direction, we understand probably what is happening. we can do this for the time for which the question was agreed. what you can see first of all is in 2013, nothing happened.
at the beginning of 2014, we saw the biggest shift in the polls. in the subsequent months, there was very little movement, so april, may, not much happened. in july and august, we saw a bit of an increase. this is a view of all the polls that have been conducted in august. it looks like there is a lot of volatility but that's the difference between the polling institutes. some are closer to 40%. but polls that have been conducted saw an increase in the yes vote. crucially, the poll
mentioned yesterday is the most interesting. the single pull doesn't say much 40% yesas close to a vote and is now polling close to 47%. we have barely seen a narrowing of the gap so they are looking on average of that east 45 to 55. , pollingrecent holes 47 to 53. this race is definitely a close race at this stage. this debate has been going on for some say at least 300 years. sinceocus on the process scotland saw a vote in
parliament. people can say -- people could say it should be part of the united kingdom, but i will summarize that as evolution. that is not evolution. trend since 1999. middle,in the independents, at the bottom, those who say no to evolution. independence was never the favorite option. some of the people say we would like more evolution than we have had at the moment. is it's somewhere
between a quarter and a third. lower levels were measured since 2007, which is when the s&p became part of the scottish government. it seems at first slightly we can show stop evaluate itople better since the s&p is in power. before 2007, it was always the case that people said it is less than its fair share of spending. since 2007, the portion that says fair share is equal. people have a more positive evaluation, but people have a more positive evaluation that
may convince them of independence. who benefits more from the union, scotland or england? if you ask in england, you get the opposite view. used larger group always to say england benefits more than scotland. since 2007, that has become much more even. but since 2011, we have seen a separation and more people saying england benefits from the union. might not be surprising since 2010, we have a conservative government and the conservative party is not particularly strong. that is the big picture. what is happening now? crucially, what counts for the voters.
i'm going to start by using an overused quotation, but it is the economy. it is very clear that nearly everyone who thinks scotland's economy would be better scotland became independent indicates they vote yes and nearly everyone who says it would do worse indicates they would vote no. classes and itics will be using that as a real-life example as a near-perfect correlation. we can see this clear crystallization has increased throughout the referendum, so this has become the dominant issue that relates to people's valuation. even in 2012, those who said scotland's economy would be a halfe better, only supported independence at that
point. they are nearly all voting yes will stop it's a clear crystallization of this process and we see the same for those who have a more negative outlook. the economy differentiates the yes and no vote better than any other variable. don't use the word independence, we ask what is your ideal for how scotland should be governed to month and the scottish parliament should could re-think stop or we ask an offer that has maximum evolution. that is the most strong proponent are suggesting. what is crucial here is those who say the scottish parliament should decide everything for
scotland, i.e. that people for whom their ideal would the, that number has increased substantially from 31% in 2013 to 41% in 2014. that's a big jump of people who say my ideal is scotland governed itself. group independence sympathizers. we are not only analyzing those people who say the scottish harlan should -- should decide ridding themselves. indicate they would vote yes in this survey. a small group says, about 10% no, and this is data from may to july, that they were still undecided. group and sizable some of those undecideds are leading towards yes or no votes. that is not a small group. the people who have as an ideal that they should apply
everything, they are not indicating they would if only vote yes. 13% or 14% of respondents now. that's a sizable group not acting on their ideal. why is that should mark you might not be surprised, but it's because of the economy. those sympathizers indicate a would vote yes and nearly all of them think scotland's economy would be better after independence. they indicate they would either vote no or are not fully decided yet. that is a much more mixed picture. crucially, what this says to us is when people have the idea of scottish self-governance, if they are not invent scotland's economy would do well, the may
not act upon the ideal that it's superimposed on other issues. there are a few other issues not as strongly related, but also very strongly related. one is the issue of social inequality. leftand is a much more leaning society, they are more likely to vote labor, but if you analyze people's views, the public attitude towards benefits, then scottish use are only a few percentages less than english people. they are always coming together in the same way. in 2012, only half of those who thought scotland would be more theyll society indicated support independence, but now we're looking at 80%. this is the issue the yes campaign has been focused on and
polarizesssue that voters much more than it did before. so that is a success. another issue people care about is scotland's role in the world. people who think scotland's voice in the world would be a tendtronger, by and large to vote yes. clearly, but it does not matter as strongly. those who think it's only going to be a little stronger -- there is something going on. people care about scotland's role in the world and i will come to issues of nuclear weapons in a little while. it's not a strongly related as the valuations related to the economy. this is what you get when you put different factors into regression modeling. all of the factors are related to each other, of course. then we can look at what has the strongest effect.
the top four issues that are and she yes and no voting are all issues that reflect on what people expect what happened to scotland after independence. what they think would happen -- the number one issue is the economy, scotland's voice in the world, the pride of scots, then the -- then there is a substantial gap and we get national identity. national identity is correlated, but much less strongly than the economy, inequality expectations and what is scotland's role in the world. what is also less strongly coordinated -- correlated are the graphic issues. men are more likely to vote yes but that's less strong than the pragmatic evaluations will stop let's talk for a moment about national identity, because that is a crucial issue. i did some work this week in
berlin and german journalist's tend to be disappointed when they come to scotland and report about it because they expect people with blue face paint shouting freedom out but that's not how the debate goes will stop that has to do with national identity. most scots have always reported that to some extent they are scottish and to some extent, they are british. most people report multiple nationaly national -- identification. only about 10% -- that has hardly increased. scott -- scotland has not become less scottish. sayser, the group that they are equally scottish and british has gone up and conversely, the group that says they are only scottish at the bottom and blue has gone down to only about a quarter. less likely to emphasize their scottish identity over their british
identity, but they are much more scottish than british. that is how this relates to the referendum, to support scotland becoming an independent country. even in 2014, only 60% of those who said they are scottish and not british at all indicated they supported independence all stop this relationship for a while there is a correlation, is much less pronounced than the previous correlations i have shown you. national identity matters but less to an extent of what actually will happen to scotland. now, the european union, obviously related to those issues, it dominated the media debate and political debate in january and february in scotland very much. the better together site emphasized the issue of the european union affairs very much all stop there was a statement by the commission residence at
the time about saying scotland would have to reapply and there had been implications about spain and belgium are going to veto scottish membership. of spanishhile a lot politicians have commented they would not make this an automated process, the spanish foreign minister has stated there would not be an automatic veto. had a longh armament hearing process and consultation on this issue with experts and the key thing is experts don't really agree. agree there would not even an automated rss. most would agree scotland would not be out archly because as we know, decisions from the european union's are not just legal decisions, but political decision. as a country have an interest in scotland being outside the european union considering the
strong movements of students, considering scotland has the largest fishery grounds in the european union, which the spanish fleet are accessing. amongst most academics is there seems to be agreement that neither the extreme side on either part of the spectrum is as rigid in reality as it is. they would probably have quite lengthy negotiations but there's also highlighting that scotland would become part of the european union. it's a very interesting legal debate and political debate, but the question was why didn't the polls go up for the no side when scotland not being part of the european union were made. the majority of scots clearly would like to be in the european
union. scotland, just around there say scotland should be part of the european union if it were independent. issue,s not a decisive some people are moved on this issue because yes supporters and no supporters have the same position on the role in the european union. to be inps would want the union. it does move -- it doesn't move people because scotland, and despite being more euros than lower init is much scotland than in england. there is not a passion about europe and scotland either. , either of scots scotland -- sorry, britain
should leave the eu or should we want tohe eu but transfer powers back to the member states. over what that says to us for scotland, the majority want to be in the european union. yes and no voters both want to stay within want to do it for a more pragmatic reason not because of some inherent passion for europe which is sometimes, essentially continental media, try to put trey scotland as. -- try to portray scotland as. a similar issue that has gotten a lot of traction and strategy wasntly in the tv debates the currency issue. the yes side said scotland would definitely be able to continue to use the pound because it's in